Where did the millions of voters come from, and where did they go? (Chart)

[Sparks]

13 hours ago, wingnut- said:

 

I reserve my imagination for creative writing, when it comes to real life I'll just stick to reality.

People say ignorance is bliss. 

You say you have examined it all, but not the dead people voting, or illegals, or people bussed in from other states whose affidavits cannot be verified, or the Dominion software auditing, or looked over the evidence Mike Lindell tried to present to the Supreme Court, or documentaries like 2000 Mules, that show the mules carrying loafs of ballots night-and-day to unattended voter boxes (and geofencing tracking them from box-to-box), and people stuffing counting machines, counting the same stacks over-and-over after they sent witnesses home claiming a fake emergency, and more.

So, you really are using your imagination when you ignore it all.

[wingnut-]

13 hours ago, Sparks said:

People say ignorance is bliss. 

 

Why do I suddenly feel like I'm watching another Kamala Harris commercial?  

She decided to spend most of her campaign telling voters what Donald Trump thought or would do, similar to this attempt of yours to be an expert on me.  Unless things have changed on this site, attempting to make me the topic isn't acceptable, and this is why I chose not to address specifics with you. 

I guess in your mind this gives you free reign to make false assertions and claims about someone.  You know absolutely nothing about me, nor will you ever be given the opportunity, and I'll leave it at that.

[Sparks]

10 hours ago, wingnut- said:

She decided to spend most of her campaign telling voters what Donald Trump thought or would do, similar to this attempt of yours to be an expert on me.  Unless things have changed on this site, attempting to make me the topic isn't acceptable, and this is why I chose not to address specifics with you. 

I have not made you the topic.  I have made your arguments the topic, and I have suggested that while you were there in your particular town to see things and you claim you have seen it all, you have not seen it all, especially nation wide.  I have given you about a dozen types of cheats that really have happened, and you have not addressed any of it nor given me a reason why it didn't happen in your town.  You admit you don't want to address the specifics probably because you cannot, which is why I say to you, ignorance is bliss.

Now for your knowledge, ignorance is correctable.  Modern generations have tried to make ignorance (uneducated, unaware, or uninformed) equate to stupid (lack of intelligence), which I do not.  To correct your ignorance, you could look all the way into cheating rather than just doubting it happened.

10 hours ago, wingnut- said:

I guess in your mind this gives you free reign to make false assertions and claims about someone.  You know absolutely nothing about me, nor will you ever be given the opportunity, and I'll leave it at that.

I have mainly asked questions of you, like have you audited the Dominion software?  Did you check the voter rolls for dead people, and how many of them voted?  Because if you have not made a personal audit into matters like these, you cannot have reviewed it all as you claim.  Questions are not assertions, and to be clear, I don't care to know you personally.  Suffice it to say, I don't know you at all, but I do know your weak arguments.  I am addressing arguments you made, but which you cannot defend. 

Since you might have lost track:  You maintain that cheating happened, but have implied that it is not why Trump lost.  My argument is that cheating happened, and it is why Trump lost.  We agree that cheating happened.  The specifics that you don't want to tackle is the debate.

If you do not want to discuss this, then why do you keep replying?

[wingnut-]

5 hours ago, Sparks said:

I have not made you the topic.

 

Only because I won't take the bait!

 

5 hours ago, Sparks said:

I have given you about a dozen types of cheats that really have happened, and you have not addressed any of it nor given me a reason why it didn't happen in your town.

 

Ah yes, your source of information, the infamous 2000 mules.  How ironic considering recent events in which Dinesh D'Souza has issued an apology for 'misleading' and 'inaccurate information' that is contained in the book and the film.

D’Souza wrote: “During the production of this film, as a supplement to the geolocation data, True the Vote provided my team with ballot drop box surveillance footage that had been obtained through open records requests. We were assured that the surveillance videos had been linked to geolocation cell phone data, such that each video depicted an individual who had made at least 10 visits to drop boxes. Indeed, it is clear from the interviews within the film itself that True the Vote was correlating the videos to geolocation data. "

“We recently learned that surveillance videos used in the film may not have actually been correlated with the geolocation data.”

“I know that the film and my book create the impression that these individuals were mules that had been identified as suspected ballot harvesters based on their geotracked cell phone data,”

 

Basically, 2000 mules has been completely debunked as it is riddled with inaccurate information.  Salem Media Group has pulled the movie from all its platforms, and has extended that to the book which is no longer in publication.  You were bamboozled by the far right extremists who masquerade as conservatives, just as Dinesh D'Souza was, and unfortunately for him, he is going to end up paying for it.

Rather than adhering to a false narrative that reflects what you want to be true, perhaps you will come to grips with the same reality that D'Souza has, and that individuals like myself tried to warn against.

[Sparks]

9 hours ago, wingnut- said:

Ah yes, your source of information, the infamous 2000 mules.  How ironic considering recent events in which Dinesh D'Souza has issued an apology for 'misleading' and 'inaccurate information' that is contained in the book and the film.

D’Souza wrote: “During the production of this film, as a supplement to the geolocation data, True the Vote provided my team with ballot drop box surveillance footage that had been obtained through open records requests. We were assured that the surveillance videos had been linked to geolocation cell phone data, such that each video depicted an individual who had made at least 10 visits to drop boxes. Indeed, it is clear from the interviews within the film itself that True the Vote was correlating the videos to geolocation data. "

“We recently learned that surveillance videos used in the film may not have actually been correlated with the geolocation data.”

“I know that the film and my book create the impression that these individuals were mules that had been identified as suspected ballot harvesters based on their geotracked cell phone data,”

Basically, 2000 mules has been completely debunked as it is riddled with inaccurate information.  Salem Media Group has pulled the movie from all its platforms, and has extended that to the book which is no longer in publication.  You were bamboozled by the far right extremists who masquerade as conservatives, just as Dinesh D'Souza was, and unfortunately for him, he is going to end up paying for it.

Rather than adhering to a false narrative that reflects what you want to be true, perhaps you will come to grips with the same reality that D'Souza has, and that individuals like myself tried to warn against.

I see you do quote like the main stream media.  I think you meant to say he apologized to one man who was not even identified in the book or movie, who sued, and a settlement was made.  He also went on to quote what was correct about the film, but you have omitted it. 

He wrote, "We also continue to have faith that True the Vote’s underlying geolocation data and analysis uncovered highly suspicious cell phone travel patterns, including a significant number of cell phone IDs that were recorded at more than ten drop box locations. While the video in the film created an incorrect inference as to Mr. Andrews, the underlying premise of the film holds true."

Why do you media types only quote part of the truth? 

Hypothetically, if the film didn't correctly set geofencing in all cases, explain the people with loaves of ballots in their hands stuffing boxes. 

[wingnut-]

23 hours ago, Sparks said:

I see you do quote like the main stream media.

 

I know, you're innocent.  This isn't yet another personal attack to compensate for the weak argument presented or the lack of evidence to support it.

 

23 hours ago, Sparks said:

I think you meant to say he apologized to one man who was not even identified in the book or movie, who sued, and a settlement was made. 

 

No, I didn't mean to say that or I would have, so let's just unpack all that inaccuracies of your claims.

 

D'Souza wrote, "We were assured that the surveillance videos had been linked to geolocation cell phone data, such that each video depicted an individual who had made at least 10 visits to drop boxes. Indeed, it is clear from the interviews within the film itself that True the Vote was correlating the videos to geolocation data."

 

Note that this references more than one.

 

"While the video in the film created an incorrect inference as to Mr. Andrews"

 

And this references a singular video.  Oops!

 

“We recently learned that surveillance videos used in the film may not have actually been correlated with the geolocation data.”

 

Uh-oh, plural again.  I wonder why?

 

“I know that the film and my book create the impression that these individuals were mules that had been identified as suspected ballot harvesters based on their geotracked cell phone data,”

 

Oh boy, again, he doesn't say this individual, as in Mr. Roberts, once again it is plural.  There is a reason for that.

D'Souza is facing numerous lawsuits is the answer, and for the record, he has not settled with Mr. Roberts, Salem Media Group did, after they rightfully pulled the plug on the movie and the book.

Your argument is still lacking evidence of around 9.8 million votes.

 

[Sparks]

24 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

I know, you're innocent.  This isn't yet another personal attack to compensate for the weak argument presented or the lack of evidence to support it.

 

 

No, I didn't mean to say that or I would have, so let's just unpack all that inaccuracies of your claims.

 

D'Souza wrote, "We were assured that the surveillance videos had been linked to geolocation cell phone data, such that each video depicted an individual who had made at least 10 visits to drop boxes. Indeed, it is clear from the interviews within the film itself that True the Vote was correlating the videos to geolocation data."

 

Note that this references more than one.

 

"While the video in the film created an incorrect inference as to Mr. Andrews"

 

And this references a singular video.  Oops!

 

“We recently learned that surveillance videos used in the film may not have actually been correlated with the geolocation data.”

 

Uh-oh, plural again.  I wonder why?

 

“I know that the film and my book create the impression that these individuals were mules that had been identified as suspected ballot harvesters based on their geotracked cell phone data,”

 

Oh boy, again, he doesn't say this individual, as in Mr. Roberts, once again it is plural.  There is a reason for that.

D'Souza is facing numerous lawsuits is the answer, and for the record, he has not settled with Mr. Roberts, Salem Media Group did, after they rightfully pulled the plug on the movie and the book.

Your argument is still lacking evidence of around 9.8 million votes.

"Andrews filed a federal lawsuit in October 2022 against D'Souza, True the Vote and Salem Media Group."  -- NPR

I thought you would appreciate the liberal media stating who was sued.  What I posted still stands. 

[wingnut-]

12 minutes ago, Sparks said:

"Andrews filed a federal lawsuit in October 2022 against D'Souza, True the Vote and Salem Media Group."  -- NPR

I thought you would appreciate the liberal media stating who was sued.  What I posted still stands. 

 

He also filed a civil lawsuit for defamation of character that has not been settled, so what I posted still stands.  Also, the public apology only hurts D'Souza in that case, but his genuine remorse for causing the man hardship didn't prevent him from doing the right thing and admitting error.

[Sparks]

8 hours ago, wingnut- said:

He also filed a civil lawsuit for defamation of character that has not been settled, so what I posted still stands.  Also, the public apology only hurts D'Souza in that case, but his genuine remorse for causing the man hardship didn't prevent him from doing the right thing and admitting error.

Yours would stand if D'Souza had not ended his public apology to one man, with a notice that said the premise of the film is true.  These are the parts that you tried to omit which kick the legs out from under your argument.  You also claim to have seen it all, and it would stand if you actually had.  I have shown you why you haven't.

Law suits are expensive to defend, even when you are in the right.  Admitting a wrong, does not mean the entire film was all wrong, and 'admitting a wrong' does not even mean there was a wrong, in this case.  It would be interesting to go to court and see if a jury felt that a unamed and blurred out man, really was damaged.  The GBI clearing the guy is a little sketchy, too.  The most that GBI could claim is that the family ballots were in the drop box pile, not that he didn't have 10 or 20 other ballots along with his family, that he dropped in, too.   We can presume he is innocent, of course, but it would be a little weird if the guy's phone ID kept going to drop boxes.